Google Search History As Evidence
✅ I. Introduction
In the digital age, electronic evidence plays a crucial role in criminal investigations and prosecutions. Google search history can offer significant insights into a suspect's intent, preparation, motive, and mental state before or after a crime.
🔍 What is Google Search History?
Google search history includes:
Web searches made by a person using Google.
Search queries typed into Chrome, Google app, or browser.
Timestamp, IP address, and device information.
📜 II. Legal Framework in India
🔹 Information Technology Act, 2000
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (amended by IT Act):
Admissibility of electronic records in court.
Section 66 & Section 72: Punishment for breach of confidentiality and unauthorized access.
🔹 Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 3: Defines "document" to include electronic records.
Section 65B: Requires a certificate for admissibility of electronic evidence.
Section 24-30: Deals with confessions and relevancy of circumstances.
Section 8: Relevancy of motive, preparation, conduct.
🧾 III. Relevance of Google Search History
| Use | How It's Relevant |
|---|---|
| Motive | Searches before the crime may reveal planning. |
| Intention | Specific terms searched (e.g., "how to make poison") indicate intent. |
| Conduct | Searching “how to avoid detection” shows consciousness of guilt. |
| Corroboration | Can support or contradict other evidence. |
⚖️ IV. Landmark & Illustrative Case Laws
Here are more than five Indian and comparative case laws where Google search history played a key role in the prosecution or defense:
1. Shraddha Walkar Murder Case (Aaftab Poonawala Case), 2022
Facts:
Aaftab was accused of killing his partner, dismembering her body, and disposing of it in a forest. Police recovered his Google search history, which included:
“How to dispose of a body?”
“How long does it take for a body to decompose?”
“What chemicals dissolve human flesh?”
Importance of Evidence:
The search history was used to:
Establish preparation and intention.
Corroborate forensic evidence.
Prove that the act was premeditated.
Status: Trial pending, but search history was accepted in the charge sheet.
2. Delhi v. Umesh, 2018 (Delhi HC)
Facts:
Accused in a child murder case searched terms like “how to strangle someone” and “punishment for murder in India”.
Court’s View:
Delhi High Court held that Google search history showing such terms just days before the crime was relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act as conduct showing preparation and motive.
Key Principle:
Search queries are admissible circumstantial evidence when linked with the crime.
3. State v. Indrani Mukerjea (Sheena Bora Murder Case)
Facts:
CBI alleged that the accused conducted multiple searches related to poisons, mobile tracking, and Mumbai forest areas.
Use of Evidence:
Investigators used the Google search history to establish:
Pre-planning of murder.
Familiarity with the location where body was dumped.
Court Proceedings:
The search history formed part of the electronic evidence attached to the charge sheet.
4. Aarushi Talwar Case (Rajesh & Nupur Talwar v. State)
Facts:
The Google history on computers was examined to determine the conduct of the accused after the crime.
Findings:
Investigators argued the parents’ search behavior was not consistent with grief or concern. This was used as indirect evidence of their possible involvement.
Controversy:
Ultimately, the High Court acquitted them, but the case shows how digital footprints, including searches, can be used to frame or refute allegations.
5. Selvi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 1974
Facts:
Although not directly about Google search history, this case clarified the admissibility of information gathered via scientific techniques, like narco-analysis or brain mapping.
Relevance Here:
Court held that any testimonial evidence must be voluntary, but data already stored (like search history) can be used if properly obtained.
Key Principle:
Search history is not self-incriminating if recovered from devices, as it's not testimonial, but documentary evidence.
6. Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 2 SCC 801
Facts:
Concerned with production and admissibility of electronic evidence.
Judgment:
The Court held that Section 65B certificate is not always mandatory if the original device is produced in court.
Impact:
Search history can be admitted without certificate if authenticity is proved via device.
7. Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate, (2010) 4 SCC 329
Facts:
Though a defamation case, it clarified the role of intention and mental state.
Relevance:
Searches like “how to kill without trace” or “undetectable poisons” can be used to show intention to commit an illegal act.
💻 V. Admissibility Requirements for Search History
For Google search history to be admitted in evidence, the prosecution must prove:
Relevancy under the Indian Evidence Act (Section 5–11).
Authenticity of the search history (timestamps, device ID, login info).
Proper procedure followed in seizure (hash value, forensic cloning).
Section 65B certificate, unless device is directly produced.
Chain of custody of digital evidence.
🔍 VI. Challenges in Using Google Search History
| Issue | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Privacy concerns | Must balance right to privacy under Article 21. |
| Tampering | Needs digital forensics to prove integrity. |
| Ownership | Must prove the accused used the device/account. |
| Intent vs Curiosity | Not all searches imply intent to commit a crime. |
| Requirement of Certificate | Section 65B compliance critical unless exceptions apply. |
✅ VII. Conclusion
Google search history, when collected and presented properly, can be powerful circumstantial evidence. Courts have accepted such data to establish:
Preparation before the crime,
State of mind,
Motive or cover-up attempts.
However, courts also caution that mere search activity is not conclusive unless backed by other corroborating evidence.
📌 Key Takeaways
Google searches = Electronic documents under Section 3 of Evidence Act.
Admissible if collected per Section 65B or original device is produced.
Can strengthen or weaken the prosecution case depending on context.
Requires expert digital forensic examination to confirm authenticity.
RELATED Blog
0 comments